At 10/10/2014 2:17:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:Many people say the human fetus is not human, so I submit this question for debate. I believe that the unborn are human beings.

Obviously it is human. Only an idiot would dispute that. The abortion debate revolves around whether the fetus is developed enough to be considered a person. Human = anything that is genetically Homo sapiens. Person = an individual deserving/possessing legal rights. The two terms should not be confused.

At 10/10/2014 2:17:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:Many people say the human fetus is not human, so I submit this question for debate. I believe that the unborn are human beings.

Obviously it is human. Only an idiot would dispute that. The abortion debate revolves around whether the fetus is developed enough to be considered a person. Human = anything that is genetically Homo sapiens. Person = an individual deserving/possessing legal rights. The two terms should not be confused.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

Having human DNA makes you human. Blood is human. Skin is human. Semen is human. None of those is a person. Fetuses are also human, it just hasn't been settled yet whether a fetus is also a person. Confusing the two terms leads to stupid questions like the one that started this thread.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

Having human DNA makes you human. Blood is human. Skin is human. Semen is human. None of those is a person. Fetuses are also human, it just hasn't been settled yet whether a fetus is also a person. Confusing the two terms leads to stupid questions like the one that started this thread.

Blood, skin, are human cells, but they are not a human. With-in our legal framework it is ridiculous to argue that some humans are not persons. It is completely incompatible with the concept of inalienable rights.

We use this term "personhood" to discriminate and remove rights. We did it to blacks, and Jews because it enabled us to use people as we wished. The whole concept of personhood actually is a superset, and not a subset, of humanity. That we have twisted it in the modern world so that we can murder a certain group of humans without legal repercussions is our shame.

Person = an individual deserving/possessing legal rights. The two terms should not be confused.

Why do you think there is a separation? Do you not believe all humans are equal?

Whether they are or not is irrelevant. The words mean different things, and should not be used interchangeably.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

No it is not.All apples are fruits but that doesn't mean that you can simply use the words fruit and apple interchangeably.So even if all humans were persons, not all persons are necessarily humans.

And not all humans are persons, as personhood requires a certain amount of intelligence.A dead human is still a human, but not a person, as a dead brain is no longer capable of exercising any for of intelligence.If a fetus doesn't have the necessary mental capability to be self-conscious than it is not a person.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

Having human DNA makes you human. Blood is human. Skin is human. Semen is human. None of those is a person. Fetuses are also human, it just hasn't been settled yet whether a fetus is also a person. Confusing the two terms leads to stupid questions like the one that started this thread.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

Having human DNA makes you human. Blood is human. Skin is human. Semen is human. None of those is a person. Fetuses are also human, it just hasn't been settled yet whether a fetus is also a person. Confusing the two terms leads to stupid questions like the one that started this thread.

The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

Your stance on abortion, either for or against, is irrelevant to the point I am making. Fetuses are human by virtue of their genetic make-up, but are only persons if we choose to acknowledge them as persons. One is a biological description, while the other is a legal status. Thus, the question that started this thread is a logical fallacy.

Only if you believe that all humans are not persons. If all humans are persons then it is perfectly acceptable to use them interchangeably.

Having human DNA makes you human. Blood is human. Skin is human. Semen is human. None of those is a person. Fetuses are also human, it just hasn't been settled yet whether a fetus is also a person. Confusing the two terms leads to stupid questions like the one that started this thread.

Blood, skin, are human cells, but they are not a human. With-in our legal framework it is ridiculous to argue that some humans are not persons. It is completely incompatible with the concept of inalienable rights.

We use this term "personhood" to discriminate and remove rights. We did it to blacks, and Jews because it enabled us to use people as we wished. The whole concept of personhood actually is a superset, and not a subset, of humanity. That we have twisted it in the modern world so that we can murder a certain group of humans without legal repercussions is our shame.

I am not interested in an emotionally-charged spitting match, so I will not address the points you have raised.

At 10/10/2014 2:17:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:Many people say the human fetus is not human, so I submit this question for debate. I believe that the unborn are human beings.

Human fetuses are definitely humans. However, the greater question is when does a fetus have human rights.? My position is that humans have to have the capacity of awareness and some degree of higher-brain functioning before they can be provided with human rights.

A human that relies solely on his brain-stem to survive (responsible for heart-beat and breating) but lacks higher-brain functions dependent on the rest of the brain does not have human rights we all enjoy, in my opinion. Because the fetus does not develop a central nervous system to about the 5th month of incubation in the mother's womb, it does not perceive the world with typical human senses and should not be afforded human rights we're all privileged with.

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

If prolife is antichoice, prochoice is antilife.

No, pro-life is anti-choice and anti-rights.Pro-choice is pro-choice and pro-rights.

Pro-choice=/=pro-abortion. I support the choice, but do not support abortions (except in certain cases).

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

If prolife is antichoice, prochoice is antilife.

No, pro-life is anti-choice and anti-rights.Pro-choice is pro-choice and pro-rights.

Pro-choice=/=pro-abortion. I support the choice, but do not support abortions (except in certain cases).

Prolife is not antichoice. No one is stopping you from using contraception. If you do not want a baby, either close your legs, or use contraception. Babies have the right to live.

At 10/10/2014 2:17:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:Many people say the human fetus is not human, so I submit this question for debate. I believe that the unborn are human beings.

It is a human but not a person. I believe that basic rights belong to those that are classified as a person, not just because you are a human or have human DNA.

Yes it is a person. It is a person that is genetically different than both parents from fertilization on.

Okay, well instead of arguing back and forth, we need to establish our definitions of a person.

I am using the definition of a sentient and conscious human being, which is closer to the definition you are probably using than what I actually think should be the definition of a person.

Now, what is your definition of a person. When that is established, we can debate why one definition is better or worse than the other.

A person is a person when it is genetically different than other people.

You realize that people is the plural of person, right? Your argument is incoherent. All you are saying is "it is a person because it is a person". Also, if you change the word people to humans, this runs into another issue. Are twins the same person (since they are genetically identical)?

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

If prolife is antichoice, prochoice is antilife.

No, pro-life is anti-choice and anti-rights.Pro-choice is pro-choice and pro-rights.

Pro-choice=/=pro-abortion. I support the choice, but do not support abortions (except in certain cases).

Prolife is not antichoice. No one is stopping you from using contraception. If you do not want a baby, either close your legs, or use contraception. Babies have the right to live.

A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

At 10/11/2014 2:53:17 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:The unborn child is a person with rights. It is wrong to kill babies.

If you are talking about a fetus as 24 weeks of development, you (might) have a point. Otherwise, you are wrong. A person is sentient, which requires a functioning cerebral cortex, which does not become functional until (at earliest) 24 weeks of development.

As well as that, bodily autonomy is a right that is held in so high of a regard that it is given to corpses. If you are pro-life, that means that you are for taking away the right of bodily autonomy from a woman for 9 months. This means that you are for taking away a right from a living person that a human corpse has.

If prolife is antichoice, prochoice is antilife.

No, pro-life is anti-choice and anti-rights.Pro-choice is pro-choice and pro-rights.

Pro-choice=/=pro-abortion. I support the choice, but do not support abortions (except in certain cases).

Prolife is not antichoice. No one is stopping you from using contraception. If you do not want a baby, either close your legs, or use contraception. Babies have the right to live.

A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

It is a fact that Hitler thought the Jews were not human. You are no better for thinking the baby is not human. Killing babies is wrong.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

Prove from science that life begins at birth.

Strawman, I never said life begins at birth.

Fallacy fallacy. Prove that life begins at some point other than fertilization using science alone, or forfeit this debate. It is that simple.

At 10/11/2014 8:58:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:A fetus is not a baby. This has been established by modern biology. It is not a baby until it is out of the womb.

Yes it is. The fetus is a baby with rights. Hitler did not believe that the Jews were human, but he was still wrong.

1) You must now show, using biology, how a fetus is a baby. Note, biology currently defines a baby as being born while a fetus is not born.2) Godwin's law, you lose the argument.3) Hitler did not use objectivity when making "definitions", biology does. It looks at evidence, and defines.4) Godwin's law, I mean, seriously? Do people no longer understand how to debate?5) You keep making assertions that are not backed up.

It is a fact that Hitler thought the Jews were not human. You are no better for thinking the baby is not human. Killing babies is wrong.

Again, Strawman. I never said that Hitler didn't think Jews were not human. You also are asserting that a fetus is a baby, back that assertion up. You have the BoP for that claim.